Yeah, I remember asking about Mach Effect in PhysicsForums way back. Unfortunately, its reliance on things like Non-Locality put it outside of what's realistically possible. Too bad - I guess we'll just have to keep looking for some other macguffin.

Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.

The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.

Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.

The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics. In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power. We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day. Meanwhile back to the lab...

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics. In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power. We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day. Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,

What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?

Quote

I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics. In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power. We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day. Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,

What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?

Quote

I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

GeeGee:

Here is Woodward's reply:

"Paul,

There is no mistake in the derivation. Lajoie's experiment was done ignoring the bulk acceleration condition. That is, it made no provision for a 1 omega acceleration of the capacitors in question as they were being charged and discharged. As for why he didn't do more, sounds like an excuse. I offered to provide the additional capacitors needed to do the further work at the time and was ignored."

Form your own conclusions."

I also just posted this reply of my own to Aceshigh & GIThruster about the same U of Washington M-E experiment topic:

GIThruster & Aceshigh:

A clarification: Woodward's SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper not only requires bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars of the energy storing dielectric to express the M-E, but also requires bulk acceleration in the vector direction of the applied E-field in the dP/dt energy storing dielectric. In other words, the M-E's predicted transient mass fluctuations can only be expressed under a very specific set of circumstances, (dv/dt & dv/dt direction, dP/dt and wave-front phasing), and if one does not supply ALL of these elements concurrently and in concert with each other, the expected M-E mass transient signal will NOT be expressed. And that assumes you are using a rotary experiment such as Woodward used in the 2008/2009 time period as GIThruster already noted. If you are trying to detect a unidirectional force from an M-E based thruster system as your M-E proof of principle test, the requirements list needed for success just got a lot longer than just using the rotary based experiments.

BTW, running any of these types of M-E experiments at hundreds or even thousands of Hz frequencies is just plain asking for failure due to the very small predicted mass fluctuations/forces generated at these low operating frequencies, dependent on the applied bulk acceleration & direction. Only Woodward’s attention to detail in his 2008/2009 rotary experiment and the application of up to 800 gees of bulk acceleration allowed him to demonstrate the M-E at his chosen operating frequency of 40.0 kHz. And that was only after he found out that the mundane voltage squared (V^2) electrostrictive signal also generated by the Y5U ceramic used in the experiment actually drives the generation of the M-E signal. The devil IS in the details…

Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

"What about Heisenberg’s UP [Uncertainty Principle] argument about energy and confinement size?Well, if you believe that the UP is a statement about our ability to measure reality, rather than an assertionabout the inherent nature of reality, you won’t have a problem with the negative bare mass ADM electron.After all, how big something is is not the same thing as how accurately you can measure its position. Ifyou think the UP is an assertion, with Bohr and his followers, about the inherent nature of reality, youwill have a problem with all this. And you won’t be likely to think it possible to build stargates, ever.You may be right."

This article came out today which seems to suggest Bohr's interpretation of the HUP is correct (unless I misunderstood). What are the implications for the ADM negative bare mass solution?

If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).

If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).

Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz. My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time. We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now. Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us. If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system. However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me. Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before. Cross your fingers...

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz. My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time. We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now. Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us. If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system. However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me. Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before. Cross your fingers...